MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408287512 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsvi.2025.100209

Incidence of mortality and surgical reintervention following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

2025· article· en· W4408287512 on OpenAlexaff
Aryan Shah, Prerna Gupta, Panagiotis Leonidas Papalazarou, Ujash Sooriyakumaran, Mohammad El‐Diasty, Michael Yacob

Bibliographic record

VenueJVS-Vascular Insights · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic repairMedicineAortic dissectionIncidence (geometry)SurgeryIntervention (counseling)Dissection (medical)Internal medicineCardiologyAortaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) is primarily managed through optimal medical therapy, whereas complicated cases typically require thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). There are published data that suggest that patients managed long-term with optimal medical therapy have an increased likelihood of requiring crossover TEVAR in the emergent acute setting, which are generally associated with poorer outcomes when compared with the nonacute setting. These findings raise consideration for whether TEVAR may be used for patient populations that remain asymptomatic to prevent these delayed acute encounters. This systematic review aims to evaluate mortality, surgical reintervention, and adverse outcomes after TEVAR in patients with uTBAD, stratified by timing of intervention. Methods In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies on TEVAR outcome data for uTBAD published between 2014 and 2024. Eligible studies reported 30-day or 1-year incidence of mortality, surgical reintervention, and/or adverse events after TEVAR, with data stratified by intervention timing. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and evidence quality was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Eleven studies from a screen of 2308 were included, comprising retrospective cohort analyses of 70 to 1536 patients. Acute-phase TEVAR demonstrated 30-day mortality rates ranging from 0.5% to 7.5%, compared with 0.0% to 2.7% in the subacute phase and 1.6% to 2.4% in the chronic phase. One-year mortality ranged from 4.7% to 15.7% in acute interventions and up to 8.2% in subacute interventions, with no data for chronic cases. Reintervention rates were higher in acute-phase TEVAR, ranging from 0.8% to 11.4%, compared with 0.7% to 6.8% in the subacute phase. Adverse outcomes, including endoleak, stroke, and retrograde type A aortic dissection, were more frequent in acute-phase interventions. Conclusions Subacute-phase TEVAR appears to offer optimal outcomes in patients with uTBAD, balancing the risks of acute hemodynamic instability and challenges of chronic anatomical changes. Although emerging evidence supports earlier intervention, high-quality contemporary studies are needed to refine patient selection and intervention timing. Furthermore, there are limited consistent end points for long-term outcome data, which is necessary to improve on treatment guidelines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJVS-Vascular InsightsSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207